Judge My Judgment Call

[Foeofthelance]

Looking for some feedback on a ruling I made earlier tonight.

Situation is thus: The characters are exploring some ruins with some friendly kobolds. They come across a suit of medium-sized animated armor standing in front of a door. The players ask the kobolds how to get past and one of the kobolds demonstrates by taking a running start, then curling into a ball and rolling between the armor's legs as the armor tries to hit. Armor misses the attack and the kobold bowling balls through the closed doors.

Combat starts and the majority of the party gets tangled up with a pair of animated swords, while the Kadalesh Monk goes staff to fist with the armor. After several frustrating rounds of bad rolls on everyone's parts, the Monk declares that he's going to take the Disengage action and move through the space occupied by the Armor to go through the doors. I rule he can try to push past, but he'd still be subject to an Attack of Opportunity despite declaring Disengaging because he's trying to force his way through the Armor's space which is not actually Disengaging at all. After some back and forth on the what it means to use Disengagement he finally gives up and just goes back to hitting the thing.

During my post-game debrief with my brother, he states a couple of the players thought I was just ignoring the rule because it benefited me to do so. So the question is twofold:

1) Do you think I made the right decision?
2) Should I reach out to the player who was upset and try to explain it from my end?

[DeTess]

Assuming you are playing DnD 5th edition, I do not think you made the right call, unless you introduced this ruling at the start of the campaign. You imposed your own interpretation on an ability that ran demonstrably counter to its mechanics, essentially house-ruling an ability in the middle of combat to the players detriment.

Another way to look at disengage is that it represents someone fighting defensively while they move around, preventing the opening that would trigger an attack of opportunity normally.

Either way though, you should have a chat with the upset player. More precisely, you should listen to what exactly made them upset. If the only reason they're upset is this one incident, then that means that things should be fine later. If the player feels your ruling is part of a larger pattern of behaviour that you were unaware of than that is very important to know.

[Alcore]

Assuming they are small enough to fit under him... how did you envision them slipping under him? Would the players know that method?


At first glance I would say that while your thinking of what "Disengagement", the word, meant is spot on, I can't help but feel the rule itself was misjudged.


Understanding how both parties felt and thought at the time is important

[Yora]

What game system is this? We need to know the rules first to judge them.

[Foeofthelance]

Assuming they are small enough to fit under him... how did you envision them slipping under him? Would the players know that method?


At first glance I would say that while your thinking of what "Disengagement", the word, meant is spot on, I can't help but feel the rule itself was misjudged.


Understanding how both parties felt and thought at the time is important

It was a Medium sized Monk versus a Medium sized suit of Animated armor. The kobolds had done so earlier by making acrobatics checks that still triggered the attack. To get through the door required going through the space the armor occupied.

@Yora: D&D 5th edition

[DeTess]

It was a Medium sized Monk versus a Medium sized suit of Animated armor. The kobolds had done so earlier by making acrobatics checks that still triggered the attack. To get through the door required going through the space the armor occupied.


That does slightly change things. I still disagree with your decision to houserule that disengage doesn't allow offensive movement in the middle of combat when it was relevant for a players action. However, squares occupied by hostile creatures are explicitly impassible in the rules, unless the hostile creature is at least two size categories larger than the one trying to move through it, so the monk couldn't do what they tried to do.

[False God]

All Disengage says is: "If you take the Disengage action, your Movement doesn’t provoke Opportunity Attacks for the rest of the turn."

That's it. It doesn't say anything about allowing any form of movement that you otherwise wouldn't be allowed.

From my reading of the somewhat vague rules, a medium creature cannot move through another medium creature's space when they are hostile. UNLESS the creature is two sizes larger or smaller than you. So a Medium creature can move through the space of a Tiny hostile creature, or a Huge hostile creature.

So, since Disengage doesn't bypass that rule, Disengaging has no effect. And quite honestly using the "natural language" approach of 5E, to disengage is typically to remove oneself from a fight, not inject yourself deeper into it by forcing yourself through your enemy's space.

I believe your ruling was correct, if generous in allowing any sort of forced movement opposed-roll challenge at all.

[Jay R]

The essence of a judgment call is that there is no exact ruling, so you have to use judgment. That's what you did.


1) Do you think I made the right decision?

Yes, I do. But I understand why many people won't.

"Disengage" means get out of range. Going deeper into range to get somewhere that you cannot get by just getting out of range is not disengaging. That's the English language, not D&D rules.

I would have ruled the same way you did. He has to accept an Attack of Opportunity to get past the enemy. Then, once he is past the armor, he can disengage to get out of range on that side without a second AoO. But I wouldn't allow Disengage through the opponent's square, for the same reason I wouldn't let somebody use the Run maneuver to move across a lake. That isn't what the words "disengage" and "run" mean.

But it is a judgment call, which means that not everybody will make the call the same way.


2) Should I reach out to the player who was upset and try to explain it from my end?

Yes, absolutely. This is crucial with almost any judgment call. Show sympathy for the player in that situation, but also explain why you don't believe that "Disengage" can be used to do something that isn't disengaging.

Point out that you weren't "just ignoring the rule because it benefited [you] to do so." It didn't benefit you. It benefited the suit of armor temporarily, but that doesn't benefit you in any way. You already expected them to defeat the armor; it was invented to be defeated. Remind him that, while the DM is supposed to invent challenges for the PCs, the only reason to be a DM is because you want to provide a scenario for your players to be heroes.

And make a point of thanking him for the gracious way he accepted a ruling he didn't agree with.

Edit: By the way, good for you for looking for advice and critique. That shows that you want to be a good DM, and that you are trying to be even better. They are lucky to have you running their game, even though it doesn't feel like it when the ruling goes against them.

[icefractal]

1) Disengage does, by the default rules, allow you to move further into combat without AoOs. For example, if the doorway was wider, the PC could use it to step around the armor and continue forward. If you're changing that, you should let people know ahead of time.

2) However, Disengage doesn't allow you to move through an enemy regardless. By RAW, neither should the Kobolds have been able to do so, which may be why it felt unfair that the monk couldn't without provoking. A house rule like:
"You can move through enemy squares with an Acrobatics check, but it will always provoke an AoO even if disengaging"
seems fine to me, and is more generous than the default. Just make it clear ahead of time so people know what the situation is.

I think the main source of hurt feelings is that the player, having seen an NPC use this tactic (were they aware that the armor did get an AoO on the kobold and missed, rather than the swing just being flavor?) then couldn't replicate it. For allied NPCs in particular, it may be worth being more mechanically explicit what's going on.

That said, this was a pretty reasonable judgement call; I wouldn't call it bad DMing.

[Alcore]

It was a Medium sized Monk versus a Medium sized suit of Animated armor. The kobolds had done so earlier by making acrobatics checks that still triggered the attack. To get through the door required going through the space the armor occupied.

@Yora: D&D 5th edition

I don't do 5e but I see two failures here;



1. The rules itself. If what the others say is all true then we have...

A Kobald (you) breaking a rule to get past. Approved

A Player breaking a different rule to get past. Denied

Talking to your players as soon as possible is the best thing you can do. The above does not look pretty.



2. Players not knowing what to do. You did not answer my question of if the players knew what rule to use and since they used a different rule entirely I must conclude based on the information available that they did not know it was an acrobatic roll. That is bad if they did not understand the mechanics the kobald used. Did you roll dice for him to show it?



While I agree with your judgement call I wouldn't have made it that choice myself.


you don't have to answer but I hope you understand the point I am making here.

[Tanarii]

In 5e you cannot move through an opponents space unless they are two sizes smaller. If you are, it doesn't provoke an opportunity attack, it's just difficult terrain.

In 5e, you do not need to Disengage to avoid an opportunity attack when you move around (not through) an opponent, so long as you do not leave their reach. If you're leaving their reach at any point, either directly away without passing or after you pass them, you need to Disengage to avoid an opportunity attack.

Explain to the player the first rule, and that you had made a New Rule that allowed a creature (same size? One size smaller?) to move through an enemy space (with a check? No check?) at the cost of an opportunity attack, and that Disengage could not prevent this OA. And that by the default rules, it's not possible at all.

[Boci]

1. The rules itself. If what the others say is all true then we have...

A Kobald (you) breaking a rule to get past. Approved

A Player breaking a different rule to get past. Denied

Talking to your players as soon as possible is the best thing you can do. The above does not look pretty.


I don't think that's correct. Both the kobold and the monk could move through the space, and both got an AoO, the suit missed the OA against the kobold. If anything the monk was more favoured, the kobold needed to make an acrobatics check that wasn't required of the monk. So no double standards.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I don't think that's correct. Both the kobold and the monk could move through the space, and both got an AoO, the suit missed the OA against the kobold. If anything the monk was more favoured, the kobold needed to make an acrobatics check that wasn't required of the monk. So no double standards.

The armor was medium sized, so assuming that it was blocking the space, neither could move through it.

My understanding is that the armor is medium sized and active in the fight, and the monk is medium sized, and the kobold is small sized. Both wanted to pass through the armor's square to pass through the doors on the other side.

It is explicitly forbidden to move through a space occupied by a hostile creature that is less than 2 size categories larger. That should be the end of it, independent of what disengage means, unless either had a special ability that allowed them to move through spaces occupied by hostile creatures.

Only then does the ability to do so without provoking AoO apply. In which case, disengage prevents all AoO for the turn [unless the armor has Sentinel], so a person who can move through hostile spaces would not take an AoO from doing so.

This would indicate that yes, your ruling was wrong, but probably more favorable to the monk than the correct ruling.



That said, there are multiple "correct" ways to go about doing this:
1: Grappling. A grappled creature can be moved by the creature controlling the grapple, so the monk could get past the armor by grabbing it, moving it to a different square [or just move it ahead of him], which would allow him to pass through the square it formerly occupied.
2: Push. Using the push action he can kick it 5 feet forward, or maneuver to the side and push it 5 feet to the side, and then pass through the space and through the doors.
3: Anything else [battlemaster maneuvers, charm spells] that makes the creature blocking the path either no longer in that space or no longer hostile.



Personally, I think that the greater "bad call" of the situation was that the kobold indicated to the party a solution to the puzzle that was technically in not allowed by the rules. Thus, the party gets the idea that they should do that too, because that's the solution. And then, when they try that because it seems to be the solution, they're told they can't. If a rule is suspended, it should be suspended for both the PC's and the NPC's.

[Boci]

The armor was medium sized, so assuming that it was blocking the space, neither could move through it.

Yes, but the DM let both move through it. It was a ruling in line with RAW, but it treated both the PC and NPC equally, they were both allowed to do something they normally could not.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Yes, but the DM let both move through it. It was a ruling in line with RAW, but it treated both the PC and NPC equally, they were both allowed to do something they normally could not.

It's not in line with RAW though. That's the point.

[Boci]

It's not in line with RAW though. That's the point.

DM's exist for a reason. They can make rulings and ignore RAW. Problems can arise when they make one ruling for NPCs and another for PCs, which this DM didn't do.


Personally, I think that the greater "bad call" of the situation was that the kobold indicated to the party a solution to the puzzle that was technically in not allowed by the rules. Thus, the party gets the idea that they should do that too, because that's the solution. And then, when they try that because it seems to be the solution, they're told they can't. If a rule is suspended, it should be suspended for both the PC's and the NPC's.

But they could, couldn't they? They just would have gotten an OA doing so, same as the kobold did when they did so.

[Dork_Forge]

I think the real issue is that you yourself didn't fully understand the rules yourself and made a calling in that situation. I'd just explain to the player that you yourself was unsure and you meant nothing against them by it, though if something like this comes up sometimes it's better to just look up a rule if you're not sure and think a ruling might upset player(s).

Another more RAW option would have been for the Monk to try and shove the armor backthrough the door so that they could move around them.

I personally as a DM and player wouldn't have been okay eating an AoO when I've burned an action when it seemed like the Kobold just moved and made a check?

[Boci]

I personally as a DM and player wouldn't have been okay eating an AoO when I've burned an action when it seemed like the Kobold just moved and made a check?

The DM clarified in a later post that the kobold had provoked an AoO, the suit just missed.

[Dork_Forge]

The DM clarified in a later post that the kobold had provoked an AoO, the suit just missed.

I'm aware that the Kobold got an AoO, however the player was burning an action on disengage when the Kobold appears to have just moved and made a check. That's a high cost for the exact same outcome.

[Doug Lampert]

I'm aware that the Kobold got an AoO, however the player was burning an action on disengage when the Kobold appears to have just moved and made a check. That's a high cost for the exact same outcome.

Why do you assume that the Kobold did NOT also use disengage, he's not described as taking any action except to move through the doorway on his turn.

It looks to me like this suit of animated armor has a special property, that you can spend an action and an acrobatics check to move through its space but the armor gets an opportunity attack, and the kobold DEMONSTRATED this. If so, I see no problem at all.

Even if the kobold did take an action, how would the PCs know he didn't use a special ability to get an extra disengage and action at the same time? The kobold demonstrated a method, it provoked when it did so, the player wanted to do something else, that also provokes, unless we know that the kobold did NOT use disengage + acrobatics, I'd assume that the player needs to use disengage + acrobatics to get past with only an OA.

[Contrast]

But they could, couldn't they? They just would have gotten an OA doing so, same as the kobold did when they did so.

Its a bit of a messy house rule though saying you generate at attack of opp when moving through their space because then, as illustrated by OPs player - people will assume it interacts with disengage which is explicitly an action you take to avoid attacks of opportunity. Mechanics wise the better solution for OP would be making this some type of action and have it allow the occupier of the space to make a non-attack of opportunity based reaction attack.

OP then compounded that frustration by getting into an argument about how disengaging should be used for retreating, which isn't true. You can definetly use disenage to get deeper into an enemy formation - OP is entitled to make the rule they did but this would be a concerning justification to me as a player (are they going to start making it so I can't sneak attack unless I'm hidden because otherwise the attack isn't sneaky enough, etc.).

So I don't think there was anything hugely wrong here rules wise (as long as OP understands they weren't following the rulebook anyway) but perhaps a lesson in making sure you know your rules and frame your language correctly.

[Dork_Forge]

Why do you assume that the Kobold did NOT also use disengage, he's not described as taking any action except to move through the doorway on his turn.

It looks to me like this suit of animated armor has a special property, that you can spend an action and an acrobatics check to move through its space but the armor gets an opportunity attack, and the kobold DEMONSTRATED this. If so, I see no problem at all.

Even if the kobold did take an action, how would the PCs know he didn't use a special ability to get an extra disengage and action at the same time? The kobold demonstrated a method, it provoked when it did so, the player wanted to do something else, that also provokes, unless we know that the kobold did NOT use disengage + acrobatics, I'd assume that the player needs to use disengage + acrobatics to get past with only an OA.

Because it wasn't a player that made this thread, it was the DM and they have not said at any point that the Kobold took an action. Let's also not beat around the bush here, this armor didn't have any special properties, the DM didn't fully understand the rules in question and made a judgement call. They have said as much, this thread is discussing that judgement call, please don't add on things that make it seem intentional or fluff reasons for what could have happened to justify it.

[47Ace]

My impression is that the suit of armor was blocking a 5ft wide door way. In that case I think the result of the ruling is right but the ruling was wrong. Disengage means that you don't take any opportunity attacks when you move which lets you advance further into combat. So if someone disengages they do not take attacks of opportunity. On the other hand you also can't walk through a space of someone your size. Saying you can spend an action to get past (possibly with a check presumably the Kobald move took an action if not just pretend that it did) is a fare houserule. Now if the monk used Step of the wind and spent Ki to disengage on top of spending there action to more past I would let that happen. Overall the cost of one action and an opertunity attack to leave the fight seems reasonable to me.

[Boci]

I'm aware that the Kobold got an AoO, however the player was burning an action on disengage when the Kobold appears to have just moved and made a check. That's a high cost for the exact same outcome.

But the DM made is clear disengage wouldn't work, so the player could, presumable, then just do the same without disengaging. That would net them the same outcome for the same cost.

[Keravath]

I think your ruling is fine. I think you need to explain things more clearly to the players and to others on this board.

RAW

1) You can NOT move through an opponents square. It is simply not an option unless they are two sizes larger or smaller than you and then it is difficult terrain.
2) Taking the disengage action allows movement without triggering opportunity attacks.

However, in the current situation, the kobolds moved through the square of a creature where they should not have been able to do so. The DM allowed it but caused it to trigger an attack (presumably no matter what action the kobolds were taking). This was the method the DM devised to allow creatures to get past the guardian. The DM is perfectly allowed to modify the rules for any special cases in their games. Perhaps this guardian is just a bit slower which allows the creature a chance to get through the square rather than being completely blocked.

In the situation described, the monk takes the disengage action and tries to move through the square containing the armor but finds their way blocked (they can't move through AT ALL in RAW). The armor gets in the way and the only way the monk could slip past (which is made clear by the DM) is by letting the armor get close enough for an attack. The players had already observed this happen to the kobolds so it should hardly be a surprise that they might have to take an attack if they want to bypass the guardian.

I think the monk player did not understand that under normal circumstances they CAN'T EVER move through an opponents square unless it is two sizes larger or smaller. Disengage is irrelevant ... they can disengage or not, they still can't get through an opponents square. The DM created a special "trap" in which traversing the square requires the character to take an attack. The "trap" allows a character to traverse a square occupied by THIS hostile creature at the cost of allowing an attack. In this particular case, the DM should not have described the attack as an opportunity attack. An opportunity attack in 5e specifically refers to an attack triggered by a creature leaving your reach. That is not what is happening here. Although I think opportunity attack is descriptive in this case, it also confuses the issue since mechanically it isn't an opportunity attack.

Also, I would suggest not generalizing the rule. Don't allow your players to move through the square of any hostile creature at the cost of receiving an attack ... since your monsters will end up doing this too and there is then no way for players to block a hallway protecting the more vulnerable characters at the back. I would make clear to your players that this is a characteristic of this particular creature in this particular situation ... normally you can't move through a hostile creatures space at all (barring 2 size difference).

[Dork_Forge]

RAW Disengage has little to do with this since the rules were muddied at the time. My reading of the OP was that it was disengaging that allowed getting past with an AoO at all. If that wasn't the case why wouldn't the Monk eat the AoO anyway,and Attack from the other side? Unless they were very low on hp they may as well have done both.

[Boci]

RAW Disengage has little to do with this since the rules were muddied at the time. My reading of the OP was that it was disengaging that allowed getting past with an AoO at all. If that wasn't the case why wouldn't the Monk eat the AoO anyway,and Attack from the other side? Unless they were very low on hp they may as well have done both.

I don't think. The DM seemed quite explicit that disengage was not relevant here, as others pointed out the reasonaing wa sa little faulty, but there's no reason to assume the kobold disengaged.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't think. The DM seemed quite explicit that disengage was not relevant here, as others pointed out the reasonaing wa sa little faulty, but there's no reason to assume the kobold disengaged.

The DM was explicit that they didn't like or agree with using disengage for that, but they only offered the option to the player when they attempted to disengage which was several rounds AFTER the Kobold had slipped past. If the option the Kobold had was actually available to the PC without the disengage action then it should have been made clear to the PC 1)when the Kobold did it and 2)definitely that they could try and get past without needing the disengage action, it'd just give them an AoO.

[Boci]

The DM was explicit that they didn't like or agree with using disengage for that, but they only offered the option to the player when they attempted to disengage which was several rounds AFTER the Kobold had slipped past. If the option the Kobold had was actually available to the PC without the disengage action then it should have been made clear to the PC 1)when the Kobold did it and 2)definitely that they could try and get past without needing the disengage action, it'd just give them an AoO.

DM can't do everything. The DM described the kobold going through, made no mention of disengage. The players have to work with the DM and ask if they want to do that too. When they did, the DM did explain how it would work.

[Dork_Forge]

DM can't do everything. The DM described the kobold going through, made no mention of disengage. The players have to work with the DM and ask if they want to do that too. When they did, the DM did explain how it would work.

You're still talking like all of this was worked out before hand, the OP's post clearly shows that this wasn't a preplanned set of events and lack of rules knowledge let to a call that frustrated the player.

[Boci]

You're still talking like all of this was worked out before hand, the OP's post clearly shows that this wasn't a preplanned set of events and lack of rules knowledge let to a call that frustrated the player.

No I'm not. I'm just saying, when the DM demonstrates an NPC doing something, its up to the players to inquire if they can do that too. They shouldn't wait for the DM to tell them they can.

[BurgerBeast]

DMG 272 Tumble might be relevant, here, guys.

[Man_Over_Game]

No I'm not. I'm just saying, when the DM demonstrates an NPC doing something, its up to the players to inquire if they can do that too. They shouldn't wait for the DM to tell them they can.

The DM gave them information, players used that information in a way the DM didn't expect. That part's fine, DM can't always know how information is going to be used.

The DM then decided that information wasn't able to be used, requiring the players to resort to their default plan of attack.

That's the point of concern. The DM decided that, instead of rewarding players for using information he provided, the players were better off not using the DM's information and resorting to default tactics.


You're telling your players to ignore you and be boring, and that's how they'll be rewarded. Or, at least, assuming realism will provide more reward. If you want players to listen to you, take risks, do things other than attacking, then you'll need to make it more rewarding than doing what they'd do otherwise.

Obviously, this isn't a big deal, but it's a really important lesson. DM's aren't just a referee crossed with a story-teller. A bit of game design theory goes a long way, just like psychology and acting.

Game developers nerf and buff things to manipulate players to play the way the developers want them to. We are no different. And deciding that things need to be realistic will make your players act more realistic (that is, cautious and....well, boring).

That could be a good thing. Developers should only match the expectations of their targeted audience. In this case, that's your table.

Did your decision for more realism match the expectations of the whole table, not just this one player? And should the player have ignored the information you given him?

Those are the only things that you need to answer to determine if you made the right call.

[Boci]

That's the point of concern. The DM decided that, instead of rewarding players for using information he provided, the players were better off not using the DM's information and resorting to default tactics.

Not really, the DM was just being consistent. Afterall, if disengage helped, why wouldn't the kobald have disengaged to avoid the AoO? Disengage is not something special only the monk can do.

[Galithar]

My only point of contention if I were that player would be, did you allow them to retcon the use of disengage to do something actually useful? If they didn't LOSE anything there is no worry. If they did get locked into that choice I could see being upset. However there is a way around it in the future. As others have said, if you simply create a houserule about moving through another hostile creatures space that requires a Dex check and allows a reaction to attack (make it clear this is NOT an OA, but a separate reaction with a specific trigger of a hostile creature moving through your space)

[Boci]

My only point of contention if I were that player would be, did you allow them to retcon the use of disengage to do something actually useful? If they didn't LOSE anything there is no worry.

The Dm says that after finding out they couldn't bypass the AoO the player decided to just keep fighting instead, so it seems like they were allowed a redo.

[Lunali]

There is an optional rule (two actually) in the DMG that would cover this if you wanted to use them. One allows athletics to force your way past, the other allows acrobatics to slip past. Both cost an action or bonus action to perform the activity. Neither option gives an attack or affects opportunity attacks in any way. This means that if a character is willing to use both their action and bonus action and they win the contest, they can get through without being attacked.

[Boci]

There is an optional rule (two actually) in the DMG that would cover this if you wanted to use them. One allows athletics to force your way past, the other allows acrobatics to slip past. Both cost an action or bonus action to perform the activity. Neither option gives an attack or affects opportunity attacks in any way. This means that if a character is willing to use both their action and bonus action and they win the contest, they can get through without being attacked.

Only if the DM decides to use the optional rules as written. They could decide to tweak them to also giving a free reaction attack to the creature.

[Yakk]

1) Disengage lets you ignore OAs from moving.
2) By RAW, there is no way for a medium/small creature to cross a medium sized animated armor's space.

You permitted the Kobolds to take an action and acrobatics check to do this. By doing so, Kobolds are incapable of also doing an action to disengage.

If you also permitted a medium sized creature to do this, then note that Monks can spend a Ki to disengage as a bonus action. And then spend their action to do an acrobatics check. This is something a Kobold could not do (nor could most PCs).

If the Monk did that, I'd say that the monk gets through scot free. Monks have a special ability to be slippery ****s, and have to burn resources to do so. Rogues can do it as well without spending Ki.

Both Monks and Rogues are Skirmishers, and they have super-human ability to avoid being attacked when they move past enemies. Declaring that their "Disengage" ability only works when they are retreating is a significant reduction in one of their core class defining features.

OTOH, you could simply rule that the "go between legs with acrobatics check" is a small-creature only thing. But once you permit it, you should have let the Monk burn a Ki and Disengage as well, avoiding the OA.

One should be extra careful about nerfing things that your characters can do that are special and unique to the character.

[Jay R]

The discussion so far shows clearly that there is no agreement on how to rule this situation. Therefore it must be a judgment call from the DM.

The discussion also clearly shows that there will be no disagreement after the DM has made a ruling.

That's how D&D works. The DM's ruling won't always go the way you want.

DMs: your rulings won't always please all the players.
Players:the DM will sometimes rule against you.

Accept it, remember that you're here to have fun together, and move on.

[Man_Over_Game]

Not really, the DM was just being consistent. Afterall, if disengage helped, why wouldn't the kobald have disengaged to avoid the AoO? Disengage is not something special only the monk can do.

Because there isn't a "Curl into ball" action?

If what you're saying is that the Kobold was able to perform the maneuver just by moving, shouldn't the Monk have had more reason to be able to do so by spending a resource (an Action or Bonus Action+Ki point)?

[Boci]

If what you're saying is that the Kobold was able to perform the maneuver just by moving, shouldn't the Monk have had more reason to be able to do so by spending a resource (an Action or Bonus Action+Ki point)?

No. "You can pass through this statue's pass, but if you do it attacks you with its reaction". That's a perfectly valid ruling. As mentions, the DM's problem was being unclear, but there was nothing wrong with their ruling. It didn't have to interact with disengage.

[Man_Over_Game]

No. "You can pass through this statue's pass, but if you do it attacks you with its reaction". That's a perfectly valid ruling. As mentions, the DM's problem was being unclear, but there was nothing wrong with their ruling. It didn't have to interact with disengage.

It didn't, but that choice still had the impact of making the circumstance not worthwhile.

If I added a mechanic that said that if you dealt 100 force damage to this 150 HP creature, would it matter? Probably not. The benefit for the circumstance doesn't outweigh the cost. You have just as much incentive to be boring than it is to go for the cool mechanic. That's bad design.

You shouldn't make circumstances and improvised actions so lackluster that they're meaningless. Why add or allow them at all?

[Boci]

You shouldn't make circumstances and improvised actions so lackluster that they're meaningless.

Right, and the DM didn't. At least one other poster expressed some confusion as to why the monk chose to abandon the attempt when they could have presumably risked the AoO.

[Man_Over_Game]

Right, and the DM didn't. At least one other poster expressed some confusion as to why the monk chose to abandon the attempt when they could have presumably risked the AoO.

Because moving to the other side of the statue doesn't guarantee a tactical benefit. If a Monk was unable to squeeze through without avoiding an attack, then it would have been reasonable that the rest of the party would have had the same, if not more, of a problem.

Unless the entire party flees, the Monk is basically letting the statue get a free attack.

[Boci]

Because moving to the other side of the statue doesn't guarantee a tactical benefit.

It kinda does. The kobolds used this passage and presumably didn't fight the suit and animated sowrds every time they walked down it, so moving through seems like it would have allowed the group to continue onwards without finishing the fight.

[Keravath]

Because moving to the other side of the statue doesn't guarantee a tactical benefit. If a Monk was unable to squeeze through without avoiding an attack, then it would have been reasonable that the rest of the party would have had the same, if not more, of a problem.

Unless the entire party flees, the Monk is basically letting the statue get a free attack.

From the OPs description, it sounded like the animated armor was positioned at the entrance to a cave with no way past. The players asked the kobolds how they did it and a kobold rolled between its legs risking an attack while doing so which missed. The kobold was then on the other side of the armor. This would not be a standard way past the armor if it did anything but stand in the one spot. The armor clearly didn't chase folks into the cave or continue the combat if the characters moved away ... otherwise the encounter and the kobold actions make no sense.

The player's goal was to bypass the armor not to fight it. Fighting is an alternate choice where if the armor is defeated they can walk past without risking an attack. However, fighting the armor risks an attack or more every round from the armor. So, the players had a choice - fight or try the kobold approach. Fighting didn't turn out that well since the armor turned out to have a fairly high AC apparently. After a while the monk wanted to try to disengage through the square occupied by the armor. The DM says no this doesn't work, you can't usually move through a square occupied by a hostile creature. However, the kobolds showed you that it is possible with this particular creature if you risk an attack from it. (The DM also gave the kobolds an acrobatics check ... however, it wasn't clear to me whether this was to successfully get to the other side of the armor or to avoid the attack when going by ..)

If the goal is to bypass the creature then the party could just risk the single attacks as they move past it. Keep in mind that these are NOT opportunity attacks. Opportunity attacks occur when a creature leaves your reach or are granted by other special abilities like PAM or Sentinel. A DM can have a custom creature that has an attack whenever a creature moves through its square. If this attack uses the creatures reaction then only the first creature moving through on a round would be subject to the attack ... but the DM in this case did not make it clear and from the sounds of it the armor could have an attack on every creature that tries to move through its square.

In addition ... the party could have earned bonus points by using the help action (one player distracts or engages the armor) to perhaps give the armor disadvantage on its attacks against someone moving through its square ... I would certainly allow that as a DM.

Complaining that disengage doesn't work against a custom attack that isn't even "an attack of opportunity" misses the point.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the DM could have communicated better about the scenario but from a rules point of view (considering that the attack when moving through the creatures square is entirely homebrewed and doesn't fit the definition of "attack of opportunity" in the first place), the DMs ruling seems fine to me.

"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach."

Moving through a creatures square can provoke an attack at the DMs discretion (since the DM is making up this rule in the first place) but unless the DM decides it should be considered an "opportunity attack" in terms of the 5e rules, it is just an attack.

[Yakk]

The discussion so far shows clearly that there is no agreement on how to rule this situation. Therefore it must be a judgment call from the DM.

The discussion also clearly shows that there will be no disagreement after the DM has made a ruling.

That's how D&D works. The DM's ruling won't always go the way you want.
Yes, but there are good DM calls and bad DM calls.

In this particular case, the DM is asking if her call was a good one or not.

Please help the DM. Do you think it was a good call or a bad one? We already know it was a DM call, that adds nothing to the discussion.

[Man_Over_Game]

From the OPs description, it sounded like the animated armor was positioned at the entrance to a cave with no way past. The players asked the kobolds how they did it and a kobold rolled between its legs risking an attack while doing so which missed. The kobold was then on the other side of the armor. This would not be a standard way past the armor if it did anything but stand in the one spot. The armor clearly didn't chase folks into the cave or continue the combat if the characters moved away ... otherwise the encounter and the kobold actions make no sense.

The player's goal was to bypass the armor not to fight it. Fighting is an alternate choice where if the armor is defeated they can walk past without risking an attack. However, fighting the armor risks an attack or more every round from the armor. So, the players had a choice - fight or try the kobold approach. Fighting didn't turn out that well since the armor turned out to have a fairly high AC apparently. After a while the monk wanted to try to disengage through the square occupied by the armor. The DM says no this doesn't work, you can't usually move through a square occupied by a hostile creature. However, the kobolds showed you that it is possible with this particular creature if you risk an attack from it. (The DM also gave the kobolds an acrobatics check ... however, it wasn't clear to me whether this was to successfully get to the other side of the armor or to avoid the attack when going by ..)

If the goal is to bypass the creature then the party could just risk the single attacks as they move past it. Keep in mind that these are NOT opportunity attacks. Opportunity attacks occur when a creature leaves your reach or are granted by other special abilities like PAM or Sentinel. A DM can have a custom creature that has an attack whenever a creature moves through its square. If this attack uses the creatures reaction then only the first creature moving through on a round would be subject to the attack ... but the DM in this case did not make it clear and from the sounds of it the armor could have an attack on every creature that tries to move through its square.

In addition ... the party could have earned bonus points by using the help action (one player distracts or engages the armor) to perhaps give the armor disadvantage on its attacks against someone moving through its square ... I would certainly allow that as a DM.

Complaining that disengage doesn't work against a custom attack that isn't even "an attack of opportunity" misses the point.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the DM could have communicated better about the scenario but from a rules point of view (considering that the attack when moving through the creatures square is entirely homebrewed and doesn't fit the definition of "attack of opportunity" in the first place), the DMs ruling seems fine to me.

"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach."

Moving through a creatures square can provoke an attack at the DMs discretion (since the DM is making up this rule in the first place) but unless the DM decides it should be considered an "opportunity attack" in terms of the 5e rules, it is just an attack.

That makes sense. I missed the part about I guess the only thing I can really complain about was that the Reaction appeared to be similar to an Opportunity Attack, without it being an Opportunity Attack, and without any information why it was so.

Sentinel, for example, adds an attack method that isn't an Opportunity Attack, because it relies on the enemy making an attack against your ally. Opportunity Attacks seem to only be caused by movement.

Since the statue's attack was triggered by movement, and otherwise appears similar to an OA, the DM should have been very clear about the fact that it wasn't an OA and so doesn't interact with mechanics related to OAs (like Disengage).

The DM could have considered offering the Dodge Action, which would have been a better way of accomplishing the task. But instead, the player gave up due to frustration and chose a different action because he still didn't understand the mechanics the DM was deciding.

It seems to boil down to just misunderstanding.

[Lupine]

Sounds to me that you might wish to take a look at the Action Options section of the DMG, particularly the "Overrun" and "Tumble" actions, as seen on page 273.

Particularly the "Tumble" action.
A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As am action, or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity(Acrobatics) contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity(Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn.

Now, the Kobolds made a tumble check, and you fudged the rolls for them. That's perfectly fine. They move through the hostile space, and disengage to leave the armor's reach. This is RAW.

The problem is that you did not let the players perform the same action, with the same results. There is where you ruled wrong.

That's ok too. It happens. Just tell the players what happened, and move on. In addition, this give the players a new way to act in combat. Never a bad thing.

[Doug Lampert]

Sounds to me that you might wish to take a look at the Action Options section of the DMG, particularly the "Overrun" and "Tumble" actions, as seen on page 273.

Particularly the "Tumble" action.
A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As am action, or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity(Acrobatics) contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity(Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn.

Now, the Kobolds made a tumble check, and you fudged the rolls for them. That's perfectly fine. They move through the hostile space, and disengage to leave the armor's reach. This is RAW.

The problem is that you did not let the players perform the same action, with the same results. There is where you ruled wrong.

That's ok too. It happens. Just tell the players what happened, and move on. In addition, this give the players a new way to act in combat. Never a bad thing.
Where does he not allow the player to take the same action, with the same results?

The kobold was described as tumbling past, being attacked by the statue, and taking no other action.

The player could tumble past, being attacked by the statue, and taking no other action.

No problem. The PLAYER rejected that option.

How is this a problem?

[Lupine]

Where does he not allow the player to take the same action, with the same results?

The kobold was described as tumbling past, being attacked by the statue, and taking no other action.

The player could tumble past, being attacked by the statue, and taking no other action.

No problem. The PLAYER rejected that option.

How is this a problem?

The thing is, that "attack" should not have happened: the kobold succeeded on the contest. It gets to move through the armor's space, once that turn. It does so. It is now on the other side of the armor.
The text of Tumble states that a creature may attempt to Tumble as an action, or a bonus action. The Kobold takes it as a bonus action, then takes the disengage action to leave the armor's reach.

I believe that the player would have taken the action, if they had known it to exist. After all, he declared he wanted to take the disengage action to move through the armor. That speaks to the player not knowing the proper terms to describe the action he wanted to perforrm.

[MaxWilson]

The thing is, that "attack" should not have happened: the kobold succeeded on the contest. It gets to move through the armor's space, once that turn. It does so. It is now on the other side of the armor.
The text of Tumble states that a creature may attempt to Tumble as an action, or a bonus action. The Kobold takes it as a bonus action, then takes the disengage action to leave the armor's reach.

How do you know the Kobold didn't take a Dash action to get well out of range?

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, the more realistic conclusion is that the OP wasn't experienced as to what a "Tumble" was, and either:

The Kobold did the maneuver and a real attack attempt was made.
The Kobold did the maneuver and no attack attempt was made.

In either scenario, the attack appeared to the players to have the same mechanics as an Opportunity Attack, and thought that it'd obey all the same counterplays. They attempted the same maneuver, it seemed to have greater problems than when the Kobold did it, didn't understand the circumstances, and gave up on doing it.

It doesn't really matter what the specifics of a Tumble are. It just boils down to the fact that both sides failed to communicate so that both sides misunderstood.

[Doug Lampert]

The GM DEMONSTRATED the rule he's using and how you get past. You roll tumble, you move through on a success, and you still get attacked.

If someone claims that both the PC and the Kobold have the same capability to combine tumble and disengage, then there is no problem here. If the kobold get attacked, there is no good reason to suppose that the PC can avoid it.

The optional tumble rule in the DMG is not the one in play if it does not allow an attack, because the GM demonstrated the rule he's using, and the demonstration had the attack. The attack isn't an opportunity attack, because it doesn't follow the rules for opportunity attacks (it does not happen on movement out of the threatened zone), hence RAW disengage doesn't help.

I'm really not seeing the problem, when I set up a demonstration of how something works in my game, I expect people to be able to tolerate that being how the rule works for them too, rather than them insisting on something else.

[Yakk]

No good reason, other than the monk class ability permitting disengage as a bonus action, which Kobolds do not have.

Which is a good reason.

[Keravath]

No good reason, other than the monk class ability permitting disengage as a bonus action, which Kobolds do not have.

Which is a good reason.

However, the point made is that it wasn't an opportunity attack. It was just an attack that the DM allowed - perhaps similar to a clause in the sentinel feat.

"When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."

This is an example of an attack granted by a feat that is not an opportunity attack. If a monk used their bonus action to disengage, moved in and attacked a target next to a character with sentinel, then the character with sentinel would still be able to attack the monk whether they were using disengage or not because the attack granted by sentinel in this case is NOT an opportunity attack.

In a similar way, the DM in this case gave the armor/statue a special attack that allowed it to attack creatures moving through its square. The DM demonstrated this to the players with the kobold NPCs. It is a homebrewed house rule for this one encounter presumably. It isn't a tumble from the DMG and it isn't an opportunity attack so disengage doesn't matter.

As MOG mentioned, the best option would probably have been to take the dodge action while moving through the square unless the DM required the action to be used for an acrobatics check.

The problem here wasn't the rules of play but communication between the players and the DM to more clearly explain to the players what was going on ... though the fact that the NPCs demonstrated everything first should have been pretty clear. The fact that it wasn't was something the DM needed to have picked up on and perhaps have the kobolds taunt the PCs for being "scaredy cats" afraid of a little suit of armor. :)